Oaky Hydro Electric site for sale

 

Essential Energy has placed the 214ha Oaky Hydro site on the market. The sales pitch suggests that there is a 2,700 ML dam restoration opportunity with a Hydropower Station connected to the network with a 8.2 km frontage to Oaky River.

The Commercial Real Estate advertisement for the sale (here) includes a range of photographs, while  a 19 September 2022 story by Caroline Riches, Oaky River hydro site offers rare opportunity provides additional information. 

During the 1950s, Albanian civil engineer Zihni Buzo designed and oversaw the implementation of the dam and hydropower scheme here, which supplied renewable energy to the local area from 1956 until 2013, when severe flooding burst the banks and damaged the infrastructure. The Wayback Machine includes the report on the events surrounding the flood event of 23 February 2013. The damage was never repaired.  

Zihni, father to playwright Alex Buzo, was a visionary man who saw the Oaky Scheme as a first step in broader hydro and water development including pumped hydro. While the scheme was not large by today's standards it was all very exciting. Aunt Margaret worked in the Thiess office, Thiess were handling constriction, while Zihni took us all to the site to show us the works in progress. 

The costs of construction added to power bills. By the time of the abolition of the county councils in 1995, the amortisation of the original costs by the New England County Council was flowing through in below average electricity prices. These gains now vanished. I have always felt, perhaps wrongly, that the the troubles that befell Oaky were one of the collateral costs of the 1955 Sydney electricity heist. Perhaps now we might see the scheme reborn. 

How Canberra's growth continues to shift relative economic power and influence from Northern NSW to the south

In December 2016 I examined the Ernst & Young cost-benefit evaluation of the proposed move of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Authority (APVMA) from Canberra to Armidale.

Proposed Canberra High Rise

It's fair to suggest that I was not impressed with the way E&Y presented the costs of the move compared with the benefits, I thought that it was shoddy analysis in methodological terms. I also thought that it ignored the dynamic benefits of the move, something I was going to write more on.

For a variety of reasons, including time and the rapid unfolding of events I did not follow up. Now I want explore one element of what I was going to say, the implications of Canberra's continued growth. The trigger here was a 27 May 2019 piece by Katie Burgess, The areas in Canberra flagged for intense urban infill. To quote from one part of the article. 

Canberra's population increased from about 375,000 in 2012 to 402,500 people in 2016, but is expected to rise by a further 7000 people a year to 589,000 by 2041. 

Around 100,000 new homes will need to be built between 2018 and 2041 to meet that demand, the planning strategy says, equating to nearly 12 new homes a day. Canberra Times

When I moved to Canberra to work, the population was around 65,000, a bit over four times Armidale's population. Armidale plus Tamworth's population was around Canberra's total. Now in considering the population of the ACT, you have to consider the over-flow effects. When I moved to Queanbeyan to live, it's population was quite a bit smaller than Armidale, Now it's population is around 37,000, well over Atmidale and not far from Tamworth's. . 

When I moved to Canberra, inland New England had two full seats and bits of others, Canberra had one seat, Now Canberra has three seats, inland New England one and a little bit of another. Between now and 2041, and ignoring flow-on effects, Canberra is expected to add around another 187,000 people, more than the present population of inland New England. By then in the absence of change, inland New England will be down to one seat that will have to spread east and west to maintain the required numbers.     

While many factors have contributed to these trends, the single over-whelming one is the decision to establish a capital at Canberra. 

Now for all the hyper-ventilation in the Canberra Times over the APVMA move, you can see that it has negligible impact in Canberra beyond a marginal reduction in the growth pressures facing the city, a marginal reduction in the new infrastructure spend.required to  ease growth pressures. For Armidale with a population around 24,500, the move is relatively more significant, but can still be absorbed without requiring additional infrastructure.

I now want to broaden my focus a little to bring in the remainder of New England, Hunter to the border by considering the dynamic effects of Canberra's growth, .

When I moved to Canberra, the trip to Sydney along the narrow highway took over four hours. Now it's down to three hours on the expressway and will shorten. Along that highway strip, the expansion of both Sydney and Canberra is slowly crawling towards each other, creating a single conurbation. The establishment of fast rail, this seems likely, will accelerate the trend. A Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne fast rail would further consolidate the dominance of the South-East.  

I remember the first grapes being planted around the ACT. Now the growing Canberra market, the most affluent marketplace in the country, has provided a base for rapid expansion that in turn draws visitors and adds to the tourist trade. While parts of the country are experiencing some rural depopulation, Canberra people are moving out looking for new experiences. Then down on the South Coast, Canberra is driving the development of coastal tourism. 

This southern growth process is being further driven by other factors. Wagga Wagga, one of the fastest growing cities in regional NSW, is only a bit over two hours from Canberra. Albury-Wodonga is a bit over three hours from Canberra, about the same from Melbourne. Further north, the line from Sydney to the Blue Mountains to Bathurst to Orange is another growth line. Bathurst benefited from early NSW Government shifts in public administration, while both Orange and Bathurst have benefited from relative closeness to Sydney facilitating weekend traffic and the growth of food and wine. Both Orange and Bathurst are presently a bit over three hours from Canberra.

I haven't attempted to fully analyse the way all these bit fit together, but perhaps i can use an example to illustrate, The growth of Charles Sturt University has been solidly based on its expansion in the regional cities of Southern and Central NSW. 

If we now turn to New England, we find a very different picture. In the south, the growth of Newcastle has been influenced by the growth of Sydney. In discussions including discussion on "regional development" Newcastle is often seen as an out-rider, a place to absorb Sydney population pressures. The linkages that once existed between Newcastle and the broader North have diminished to the detriment of both, in part because of the southern focus. 

In the far north, the rapid population growth in the Tweed Valley and, to a degree further south, have been driven by the growth of the South East Queensland urban conurbation, creating a degree of isolation and dislocation. Along the coastal strip between the Hunter and the border, the rapid increase in population associated with sea change including retirement brought people but largely without jobs beyond service jobs. Of course there are some pluses, but now these are some of the lowest income areas with some of the highest youth unemployment in the country. Unlike the growth  high income Canberra, the growth of say Coffs Harbour has had very few broader spin-off benefits. 

I find it interesting that the biggest infrastructure issue on the North Coast, the re-development of the Pacific Highway, is focused on a road whose primary purpose is to link Sydney and Brisbane. Of course it's important because the congestion on that road from through traffic has caused deaths and great local inconvenience. You can see why locals are concerned.But it's not actually going to add any new jobs of the type the coast needs. 

Inland, the towns and cities have been struggling just to hold. Growth has increased, but the puffery associated with each town's boosters with their local focus sets towns against each other. Armidale wants the APVMA. The Mayor oft Tamworth was critical because Tamworth needs jobs and this is special pleading for Armidale. Tamworth wants a university campus, its the only city of its size in NSW that does not have an equivalent. I don't see Armidale Council rushing to support. 

Meantime, the North's relative decline continued. This will continue until the North starts focusing in a more integrated way on cross-linkages and mutual support. Take the dynamic effects of the APVMA re-location as a simple final comment.

The E&Y study compared the local expenditure benefits by comparing the whole ACT with the then Armidale Dumaresq Council area. The ACT benefits would be greater because more of the flow-on effects would be retained there as compared to to the Armidale Dumaresq LGA. Let me turn that on its head. The dynamic benefits will be greater in Armidale just because the benefits from the spend will flow onto a wider area. That includes expenditure in Tamworth and on the coast. 

 .     .   

    .    .   

Port of Newcastle. another example of the malign impact of Sydney centric decisions that ignore the North?

Port of Newcastle. another example of the malign impact of Sydney centric decisions that ignore the North?

On 25 February 2019, the Newcastle Herald carried a story by Michael Parris (NSW port privatisation inquiry finds key details kept secret from Parliament, calls for policy review)  reporting on the preliminary report of the NSW Public Works Committee Impact of Port of Newcastle sale arrangements on public works expenditure in New South Wales.

I first reported on the proposed sale of the Port of Newcastle back on 28 January 2014: Competition heats up for Port of Newcastle. It was only a very brief note in which I said that there appeared to be little opposition to the sale within Newcastle, perhaps because part of the sale proceeds was to be allocated to Newcastle infrastructure. Even then, I was quickly corrected when regular commenter Greg wrote :

"Actually Jim, there has been a fair amount of opposition in Newcastle. The port of Newcastle is substantially different to both Port Botany and Port Kembla in that the government would not be selling a business so much as a) a tax stream (ie. charges for use of the port facilities) and b) an awful lot of prime harbourside land which will severely restrict what can be done on and around the harbour for the next century. In particular, a container terminal was promised for the port a decade ago. That would have been logical to service the north of the state and help relieve congestion around Port Botany. This government has canned that and it is likely that the sale of the port will see hopes fade of a container terminal ever being built in Newcastle. 

There is also resentment that the money for infrastructure in Newcastle is tied in to the port sale, yet the dollar figure is set in stone. If the port gets sold for closer to say $1bn (highly likely), Newcastle won't see a zac more than that already promised from the sale. The state has made that absolutely clear. I don't think that there are too many people who believe that it is a good deal for Newcastle. The sale of the port will benefit Sydney more than it does Newcastle."

In April 2014, then NSW Premier Baird announced that a 98 year lease over the Port of Newcastle, the world's biggest coal port, had been sold for $1.75 billion. Of this amount, $340 million would go to Newcastle projects to aid the city's revitalisation. So it was sold for much more than projected, with just under 20% going to Newcastle projects.

What was not known at the time was that previous sale agreement of the leases to NSW Ports over the southern Port Kembla and Port Botany provided that the State Government would provide a financial reimbursement to NSW Ports should container traffic at the Port of Newcastle pass a certain trigger point. This clause was inserted to maximise the immediate cash to the Government in Sydney. The subsequent sale agreement for the Port of Newcastle included a clause that the new owners would have to reimburse the NSW Government should container traffic trigger the compensation clauses under the original agreement for the sale of Ports Botany and Kembla. The effect was to make a new container terminal un-economic.

These restrictive practice clauses were confidential, but inevitably peaked into the public domain. partly because the Port of Newcastle began to seek to develop a container port 

On 10 December 2018,  the ACCC (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission) announced that had instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against NSW Ports Operations Hold Co Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries Port Botany Operations Pty Ltd and Port Kembla Operations Pty Ltd for making agreements with the State of New South Wales that the ACCC alleges had an anti-competitive purpose and effect.
“We are alleging that making these agreements containing provisions which would effectively compensate Port Kembla and Port Botany if the Port of Newcastle developed a container terminal, is anti-competitive and illegal,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims.

The following day, 11 December 2018, the Port of Newcastle released a commissioned report on the economic impact of a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle. This suggested (among other things) that a modern container terminal would cut land transport costs for northern NSW businesses by $2.8 billion by 2050. This would, according to Port of Newcastle CEO Craig Carmody, increase exports from Northern NSW including the Hunter by $1 billion by 2050

"Businesses in Newcastle, Singleton, Tamworth, Gunnedah, Port Macquarie, Kempsey, Liverpool Plains and Narrabri can look forward to savings of more than $500 per standard container, if they shipped their goods through Newcastle rather than Port Botany or Port of Brisbane," Mr Carmody said.

With these actions, the originally secret agreements preventing the Port of Newcastle competing against Port Botany and Port Kembla in the container trade finally entered full public gaze. It had been some time coming.

NSW Public Works Inquiry

On 10 November, 2018, a month before the ACCC action, the NSW Public Works committee established an inquiry into the matter. It's terms of reference were;  

"1. That the Public Works committee inquire into and report on the impact of Port of Newcastle sale arrangements on public works expenditure in New South Wales, including: 

(a) The extent to which limitations on container port operations currently in place following the sale of the Port of Newcastle contribute to increased pressure for transport and freight infrastructure in New South Wales, specifically: 

(i) the Westconnex Gateway project (ii) the Port Botany Rail Line duplication 

(iii) intermodal terminals and rail road connections in southwest and western Sydney 

(iv) other additional public road infrastructure requirements due to the additional road freight movements in Sydney under the existing port strategy.

 (b) The nature and status of the port commitment deeds, the extent to which they contain limitations on container port movements, and the terms and binding nature of any such commitments.

 (c) The extent to which container port limitations contribute to additional costs for NSW industries who are importing or exporting from New South Wales, especially in the Port of Newcastle catchment.

(d) Any other related matters.

2. That the committee report by 28 February 2019".  

The committee members were:

• The Hon Robert Brown MLC   Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Chair  
• The Hon Taylor Martin MLC Liberal Party Deputy Chair*  
• Ms Cate Faehrmann MLC The Greens
• The Hon John Graham MLC Australian Labor Party   
• The Hon Trevor Khan MLC The Nationals   
• The Hon Scot MacDonald MLC Liberal Party
• The Hon Lynda Voltz MLC Australian Labor Party

The Committee reported on 25 February 2019. It found:

:

• Finding 1: The Port Commitment Deeds including the conditions of sale and the levy were not disclosed to the public or the Parliament:  
• Finding 2 26 That the limitations on Newcastle container port operations following the ports transactions have not significantly impacted expenditure required on transport infrastructure projects in Sydney.

It recommended:

• Recommendation 1: That the Legislative Council consider establishing an inquiry into the ports transactions, and specifically container limitations and associated financial obligations contained within the Port Commitment Deeds, at the conclusion of the Federal Court proceedings involving the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and NSW Ports or at such time as the House determines. 
• Recommendation 2: That the NSW Government conduct a detailed investigation of freight rail options between Ports Botany, Newcastle and Kembla, including options for line duplication and dedicated freight-line construction, to ensure strategic future corridors are preserved, to optimise rail modal share of freight transport, to better align capacity to meet future demand and to improve the rail service reliability. 
• Recommendation 3 35 That the NSW Government conduct a review of the state's ports policy, including the potential for a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle, at the conclusion of the Federal Court proceedings involving NSW Ports, or at such time as the House determines.

Commentary

I am still working my way through the analysis, However, some things stand out. Note that I am looking at the report from a Northern NSW, a broader New England, perspective. I make no apologies for that.

The analysis is very Sydney centric. I have seen this type of analysis before dating right back to the Cohen Commission inquiry into a proposed Northern state. There the analysis focused on railways, the apparent economies associated with the Sydney port rail network and the additional costs associated with developing an alternative system. Leaving aside costing and pricing issues, the way that then NSW rail freights were set provided an artificial surplus to the Sydney railway network carrying Northern good that then became a cost, the analysis was based on what was not what might be.

I thought that was the case here too. It is heavily set within existing plans, existing structures. The Port of Newcastle is seen as an extension of the Sydney network and analysed in that context. In a way, the approach adopted by the Port of Newcastle in emphasising certain savings that would accrue to Sydney through (for example) reduced infrastructure spend encouraged that approach. Disprove those, or at least cast doubt on them, and the case starts to fall to ground.

Assuming that I understand the arguments correctly, the evidence ran that the majority of container traffic was Sydney bound and that, further, the economic locus was shifting to the south and south west, effectively isolating Newcastle, The argument here seems to have been two fold. That expenditure and planning should be focused on the existing infrastructure and that these trends made it unlikely that a container port at Newcastle could be viable.

I have commented before about the way in which present development dynamics are progressively disadvantaging and indeed fragmenting the North The evidence presented to the committee seems to support that view. However, the whole analysis misses certain key points.

The anti-competitive clause itself should never have been there in the first place. It artificially increased the price that was paid for the long term lease at the cost of the Port of Newcastle, Newcastle and indeed importers and exporters across Northern NSW who might have benefited from alternative shipping options. It also artificially increased traffic through the Botany Bay and Port Kembla, creating an economic incentive for further investment to manage the increased traffic.

One can argue about the quantum, one can argue about the extent to which container traffic at Newcastle would be viable, but it remains an economic distortion introduced by the Sydney Government whose costs are born by those in the North.

In this context, and this in part reflects the way the committee's terms of reference were written., there is actually no recognition in any of this of the North as an economic and geographic entity with its own interests. How might we use a container terminal at Newcastle? How might we combine it with other infrastructure to encourage Northern development.? I think that these questions are worth asking.

The grab for cash that affected New England exporters - short backgrounder on the sales of Ports Botany and Port Kembla

Container Ship entering Newcastle Harbour. A Sydney grab for cash imposed costs on New England exporters that are only now emerging. 

On 10 December 2018,  the ACCC (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission) announced that had instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against NSW Ports Operations Hold Co Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries Port Botany Operations Pty Ltd and Port Kembla Operations Pty Ltd for making agreements with the State of New South Wales that the ACCC alleges had an anti-competitive purpose and effect.

“We are alleging that making these agreements containing provisions which would effectively compensate Port Kembla and Port Botany if the Port of Newcastle developed a container terminal, is anti-competitive and illegal,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims.

The following day, 11 December 2018, the Port of Newcastle released a commissioned report on the economic impact of a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle. This suggested (among other things) that a modern container terminal would cut land transport costs for northern NSW businesses by $2.8 billion by 2050. This would, according to Port of Newcastle CEO Craig Carmody, increase exports from from Northern NSW including the Hunter by $1 billion by 2050

"Businesses in Newcastle, Singleton, Tamworth, Gunnedah, Port Macquarie, Kempsey, Liverpool Plains and Narrabri can look forward to savings of more than $500 per standard container, if they shipped their goods through Newcastle rather than Port Botany or Port of Brisbane," Mr Carmody said.

With these actions, the originally secret agreements preventing the Port of Newcastle competing against Port Botany and Port Kembla in the container trade finally entered full public gaze. It had been some time coming.

Genesis

In April 2013, then NSW Treasurer Mike Baird announced that a consortium, NSW Ports, had agreed to pay $4.31 billion for for a 99-year lease over Port Botany with a further $760 million for a similar lease over Port Kembla. After net debt was repaid, the net proceeds of $4.3 billion would be funneled into the state government's investment fund, Restart NSW. There would  lso be an annual lease payment of $5 million to the government.

Mr Baird said that the transaction meant the government's $1.8 billion commitment to the $10 billion WestConnex motorway between the M4 and Port Botany was funded. In addition it would provide $400 million for the Pacific Highway, $170 million for the Berry bypass on the Princes Highway, $135 million for the ''Bridges for the Bush'' program and a further $100 million for projects in the Illawarra region.

What was not said at the time, was that a commercial agreement provided that the State Government would provide a financial reimbursement to NSW Ports should container traffic at the Port of Newcastle pass a certain trigger point.

Just over twelve months later, now Premier Baird announced that a 98 year lease over the Port of Newcastle, the world's biggest coal port, had been sold for $1.75 billion. Of this amount, $340 million would go to Newcastle projects to aid the city's revitalisation.

The sale agreement included a clause that the new owners would have to reimburse the NSW Government should container traffic trigger the compensation clauses under the original agreement for the sale of Ports Botany and Kembla. The effect was to make a new container terminal un-economic.

Discussion

The original agreement would appear a restraint of trade designed to maximise the sale value of the southern ports. I know of no evidence to suggest that the potential adverse effects on exporters across the broader New England were even identified, let alone discussed in the context of the sale. It is only now that we are starting to get the data to assess the economic costs to the North of Sydney's decisions.

Uralla Shire Council mayor Michael Pearce elected chair of the newly-formed New England Joint Organisation of Councils

Sophie Harris reported in the Moree Champion (25 June 2018) that Uralla Shire Council mayor Michael Pearce was elected chair of the newly-formed New England Joint Organisation of Councils at the group’s first meeting in Moree on Monday.

The New England JO comprises from Moree Plains Shire Council, Inverell Shire Council, Narrabri Shire Council, Armidale Regional Council, Uralla Shire Council, Glen Innes Severn Council and Tenterfield Shire Council

At Monday’s meeting, the JO established a charter which focuses on infrastructure development, economic development and social issues. The group will meet again in July to “nut out any kinks’ and then after that Cr Pearce said it’s full steam ahead. Cr Pearce said the major advantage of the JO is that the member councils are in a better position to lobby the state government for investment opportunities as a group, rather than as individual councils. One of the big ticket items the JO plans to investigate is a waste to energy project which has the potential to involve the whole region.

The formation of the JOs is a State Government initiative to encourage collaborative working among councils. The membership of the JOs is set out in the table below.

The latest measure is one of a long line of initiatives from either councils or Sydney dating back to, I think, 1919. That history makes me cautious, although I hope that the new arrangements will have some positive results.

Joint Council Organisations in Regional NSW
Joint organisation	Council areas forming joint organisation
New England
Hunter Joint Organisation	Cessnock, Dungog, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Mid-Coast, Muswellbrook, Newcastle, Port Stephens, Singleton, Upper Hunter.
Namoi Joint Organisation	Gunnedah, Gwydir, Liverpool Plains, Tamworth, Walcha.
New England Joint Organisation	Armidale, Glen Innes Severn, Inverell, Uralla, Moree Plains, Tenterfield, Narrabri.
Northern Rivers Joint Organisation	Ballina, Byron, Kyogle, Lismore, Richmond Valley, Tweed.
Mid North Coast Joint Organisation	Port Macquarie-Hastings, Kempsey, Bellingen.
Other
Canberra Region Joint Organisation	Bega Valley, Eurobodalla, Goulburn-Mulwaree, Hilltops, Queanbeyan-Palerang, Snowy Monaro, Upper Lachlan, Wingecarribee, Yass Valley.
Central NSW Joint Organisation	Bathurst, Blayney, Cabonne, Cowra, Forbes, Lachlan, Oberon, Orange, Parkes, Weddin.
Illawarra Shoalhaven Joint Organisation	Kiama, Shellharbour, Shoalhaven, Wollongong.
Orana Joint Organisation	Cobar, Gilgandra, Mid-Western, Narromine, Warrumbungle.
Riverina and Murray Joint Organisation	Albury, Berrigan, Edward River, Federation, Griffith, Hay, Leeton, Murray River, Murrumbidgee.
Riverina Joint Organisation	Bland, Coolamon, Cootamundra-Gundagai, Greater Hume,  Junee, Lockhart, Temora.

Postscript

There was some dispute about Narrabri joining the New England JO. This is covered in this Northern Daily Leader story.

Tamworth attracts migrants

Interesting piece in the Northern Daily Leader (1 May 2018) by Jamieson Murphy and Grace Ryan Tamworth growth trends revealed by Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The overall growth in population for the Tamworth Local Government Area in 2017 was positive  at just under one per cent, although this is too low to allow the City to easily achieve its 100,000 growth target.  However, what was positive and quite important was that of the net increase of  556 people, 379 (68%) came from overseas migration.

The propensity of Australia's new settlers to flock especially to Sydney and Melbourne has been one of the drivers of Australia's growing population imbalance. While the movement of migrants to Tamworth is still small in absolute numbers, the positive ratio means that international migration is now making a positive contribution.  .

Outside Tamworth, Armidale LGA grew 0.8 per cent to 30,552, while Gunnedah Shire grew by 0.6 per cent. Walcha Shire increased by 0.4 and the Liverpool Plains grew by just 0.2 per cent. Inverell showed no growth, with Moree down 1.3% over 2017, Narrabri and Uralla down 0.7%, Tenterfield down 0.6% and Gwydir Shire and Glen Innes Severn down 0.2%.

One of the things that we need to be thinking about in inland New England is how we get a better population balance across areas. This requires the bigger centres to support the smaller centres. It also requires us to put aside the parochial competition that so bedevils cooperative action.

Reflections on the opening of the TAFE NSW Digital Hub in Armidale

Northern Tablelands MP and Minister responsible for TAFE NSW Adam Marshall, left, TAFE NSW Digital General Manager Megan Aitken and Armidale Regional Council Mayor Simon Murray at the opening of the new building for the NSW TAFE Digital Headquarters

While in Armidale for the opening of the new permanent exhibition of the Hinton Collection at the New England Regional Art Museum, I took the opportunity to visit the TAFE campus both to refresh memories and to look at  the almost completed NSW TAFE (Technical and Further Education) Digital HQ building.

It was a warm Saturday morning, a sunny break in in an often rainy weekend. The walk was partially one of those sacred sites tours, a walk along the Creeklands from the the city looking at what had changed, trying to fit the landscape into my past memories. As we walked across the little suspension bridge outside the old swimming pool entrance towards the TAFE, I rocked the bridge to see if it would still swing. It did!

On Monday 26 March, the new building was officially opened. The Armidale Express carried the story. I will leave aside the puffery associated with official releases and focus on a few key issues.

The new centre is central to the plans to restructure the delivery of TAFE courses across NSW, increasing the use of on-line platforms. I have some reservations about elements of those plans, but the centre fits within TAFE NSW's strategic objectives.

I don't think that the centre could have been established in Armidale without the NBN. I have become increasingly disillusioned with former independent New England MP Tony Windsor because of what I see as an increasing rigidity, bias, in his views and responses on issues. However, his role in bringing the NBN to Armidale needs to be recognised. Without him, the new centre would not have been possible. We also need to recognise the work of Adam Marshall, the state member for the Northern Tablelands. He, too, was critical to the move.

As Mr Marshall noted in his press release, at 51 staff the number of jobs involved is not large by the standards of bigger centres. However, it makes an important addition to Armidale. As important as the number of jobs is, the variety in the jobs is more important. More important still is the way that those jobs mesh with Armidale's existing strengths.

Unlike the move of the APVMA (the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority) to Armidale, the creation of the TAFE Digital Hub appears to have attracted little political controversy. That's partly a matter of size, more the absence of vested interest and political responses that bedevil the APVMA move. It's interesting that TAFE appears to have experienced no significant recruitment problems, whereas those are a central issue in the APVMA move.

I have a part completed post updating the APVMA move.  At this point, I simply note that it is hard to get people to move to Armidale, hard to recruit new people to Armidale, when you are told by senior Labor Party figures that the decision to Armidale will be reversed, that you either do not have to move or if you do come to Armidale, you will be forced to return to Canberra.

Postscript Monday 2 April 2018

The brief discussion on this post, more comments would be welcome, reminded me of an earlier post about our attempts to create a network between Armidale schools based on the new new computing and communications technologies: Dreams past: Collective Wisdom, education & the NBN.

On a different site, Robyn Archer pointed to this rather wonderful interview with Arthur C Clarke from 1974. Both Robyn and I are still waiting for the foreshadowed shift to the country!

Wagga Wagga, Tamworth 100,000 population growth targets

Interesting piece in the Northern Daily Leader by John Ellicott: Two NSW regional cities nominated as the next big thing(s) (23 March 2018). Apparently, Wagga Wagga and Tamworth (photo) have been pinpointed as the two big regional growth centres in NSW, with a push to turn them into 100,000 population centres. At the moment Wagga sits at about  64,000 people, while Tamworth has 41,000 people.

Deputy NSW Premier John Barilaro supports the 100,000 plus population targets. He said both cities had been pinpointed as major growth centres and there was no reason they could not achieve 100,000 populations. “We are of the opinion that if you build it, people will come, and that is what we are doing in these two places,” Mr Barilaro told The Land.

Wagga is selling itself as an education, health and agribusiness centre, while Tamworth is an important freight, food processing, services and possible international airfreight centre. Agriculture will remain one of the big economic drivers of both centres.

Tamworth mayor Col Murray said the agricultural sector was pushing Tamworth’s economic future, and its growth was “even better than Wagga’s”.

“Our growth has been far stronger than the state average,” Mr Murray said. New residential releases would be coming on stream by this Christmas, with 1600 housing lots. “We have large areas available for residential growth,” Mr Murray said. Also the building of the Arcadia industrial estate would create about 5000 jobs.

“We have consistent growth and this will only increase,” he said.

Achievement of a 100,000 population in a reasonable time frame requires both cities to achieve significantly higher growth rates than has been the case in recent years and especially in the case of Tamworth which has a lower starting point.

APVMA announces site for its New Armidale national headquarters

On 12 March the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)  named 102 Taylor Street and 91 Beardy Street as the site for the authority’s permanent office in Armidale. The site includes the former Armidale Club building and then extends at the back to Taylor Street.

The announcement was made on site by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Hon. David Littleproud MP, the Member for New England, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP, and APVMA Chief Executive Officer, Dr Chris Parker.

A purpose-built, two-storey office will be constructed by the Stirloch Group (Stirloch), a developer based in Queensland and Victoria that has considerable experience with large government developments.

“This is a significant milestone in the APVMA’s relocation from Canberra to Armidale,” Dr Parker said.

“The APVMA has made a long-term commitment to deliver agvet chemical regulation from regional Australia for the benefit of our clients and stakeholders. We have signed a 15-year lease with Stirloch, with possible extensions.

“Our move to Armidale now has real momentum. We have 15 staff at the interim office at 246 Beardy Street, and that number will double by the end of March.

“More staff will relocate from Canberra and more jobs will be advertised that I hope will attract local talent from Armidale and the surrounds to help us deliver robust regulation and top rate services to Australia’s agvet chemical industry.”

The APVMA will have around 150 staff based at the permanent Armidale office once construction and fit-out is complete in mid-2019.

How new platforms such as Airbnb and Stayz might support New England development part 1

Inverell. 1904 heritage listed house available for short term stays via Airbnb

I tend to be something of a technology lagger. I have long used the web to source accommodation, but I hadn't used Airbnb or Stayz  to source accommodation until a European trip in 2015 inspired by the Rugby World Cup. Then I used Airbnb sourced accommodation because eldest was doing the bookings.

This trip was an economy daddy-daughter venture, the first joint holiday we had had since well before eldest moved to Copenhagen. For that reason, we shared a room in private homes that the owners had place on Airbnb  I was quite cautious about this, but it worked well. The interactions with the owners proved to be one of the fun parts of the trip.

Twelve months later, eldest and her partner put their own place in Copenhagen onto Airbnb. Now I was watching the process from the other side, getting a feel for what was involved in really making it work if you wanted to be an Airbnb host. It's not just a question of taking some photos, placing it on Airbnb and waiting for the bookings to roll in. A fair bit of work is required to both attract guests and then make them welcome.

Marsh House, Armidale. Built in 1863, this was the first house constructed in Armidale's historic Brown Street precinct.  

While I was now familiar with Airbnb and Stayz, I hadn't used these types of services in Northern NSW, the broader New England, until last year. Then visiting Armidale with a friend, we booked into Marsh House.

This decision proved to be a huge success. With approval from owners Hugh and Janey Fraser, were were even able to use the place to hold drinks for some of my local friends, something I had wanted to do as a way of catching up with multiple people on what was a short visit.

Glen Innes, the Bank Guesthouse c1874 available via Airbnb

Since coming back from Armidale I have spent enjoyable hours trawling through Airbnb and Stayz looking for places I might want to stay across New England from Newcastle to the border. I know that I am strange, but it has been fun

My first thought was the way it has widened accommodation choices in terms of price range, location and the nature of the dwellings themselves.

It used to be the case that you were limited to motel, hotel or a B&B. Now you can take a room in the family home or rent an entire historic house. You can accommodate one or sixteen. You can fish or use the vegetable garden while visiting local attractions. Your accommodation has become an experience in its own right. .

Walden Woods twelve minutes drive from Armidale CBD. You can access the well maintained home vegetable garden or go fishing for your supper. 

I recognise that these new accommodation platforms have created their own problems.

In popular tourist areas they have attracted properties to the holiday let market place creating rental pressures for those who live there. There are complaints from neighbours who object to the use of private homes or apartments for commercial purposes. Local moteliers can also experience difficulties.

I am more attracted by the opportunities.Too many of the new technologies have actually drained jobs and income from the North because they totally focus on economies of scope and scale, on cost reduction. The big get bigger, the rest are left out.

This has been a particular problem in inland New England. These new platforms such as Airbnb and Stayz provide a potentially potent weapon for fighting back, for the encouragement of economic development, for the small to develop their own niches.

In my next post in the series, I will look at how this might be done.

Australian census 2016 - tracing New England's decline over time

The 2016 ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) census allows you to sort regionally. The results summarised in the following table provide a snapshot of New England's continued structural decline.

The regions selected cover the boundaries recommended by the Nicholas Royal Commission boundaries that were used in the 1967 plebiscite. They exclude some western areas that form parts of other statistical divisions.  .

To put the numbers in the table into historical perspective:

• In 1911, New England's population was about 429,000. In that year, the NSW population was 1,699,376 (New England 25.7%), Australia's population 4,573,786 (New England 9.37%). In 1911, the population of Queensland was 623,123, South Australia 419,392 and Western Australia 293,923. The initial new state boundaries excluded the Hunter. The Cohen Royal Commission (1924) estimated the population in that initial area at 359,000, so more than WA and a bit behind South Australia.
• By 1950 with decentralisation and separation agitation relaunching, the NSW population had increased to 3,242,057 with a significant proportion of that growth in Sydney. The Queensland population had increased to 1,205,418, South Australia to 722,843, WA to 572,649. I haven't calculated precise figures for New England, but it was something around 700,000. The area had declined as a proportion of the NSW population, had fallen significantly behind Queensland, but was still level pegging with South Australia and well ahead of WA.
• By 1961 when Operation Seventh State was launched leading up to the 1967 plebiscite, New South Wales' population had increased to 3,951,65, again with Sydney attracting the lion's share of the growth. The Queensland population had jumped to 1,540,251, South Australia to 979,351 and WA to 755,213. I can't find my reference with New England's population, but I think it was around 760,000. Further down as a proportion of NSW, now well behind South Australia in total, but still level pegging with Western Australia. 
• If we now track forward to the statistics shown in the table, you can see that New England's relative decline has continued. In 2011, its population of 1,371,776 was 6.38% of Australia's population, declining to 5.89% in 2016 even though the total population had increased to 1,425,728.. In 2011, its share of the NSW population had dropped to 19.83%, falling further to 19.06% in 2016. In 2016 South Australia, often considered something of an economic basket case, had a population of 1,676,653.   

In addition to these higher level changes, there have been major distributional changes. These are discussed following the table.  .

New England Comparative Population Statistics
2011					2016
	Population	% of Australia	% of NSW	% of New England	Population	% of Australia	% of NSW	% of New England	% increase over 2011
Australia	21,507,717				24,206,201				12.55
NSW	6,917,658	32.16	19.83		7,480,228	30.90	19.06		8.13
Greater Sydney	4,391,658	20.42	63.48		4,823,991	19.93	64.49		9.84
New England North West	182,559	0.85	2.64	13.31	185,787	0.77	2.48	13.03	1.77
Richmond Tweed	236,498	1.10	3.42	17.24	245,164	1.01	3.28	17.20	3.66
Coffs Harbour-Grafton	135,182	0.63	1.95	9.85	138,904	0.57	1.86	9.74	2.75
Mid North Coast	208,090	0.97	3.01	15.17	216,003	0.89	2.89	15.15	3.80
Hunter Valley exc Newcastle	251,865	1.17	3.64	18.36	269,688	1.11	3.61	18.92	7.08
Newcastle Lake Macquarie	357,562	1.66	5.17	26.07	370,182	1.53	4.95	25.96	3.53
Total New England	1,371,756	6.38	19.83		1,425,728	5.89	19.06		3.93

There have been important distributional changes within these aggregate figures over time. 

Up to the end of the seventies, the inland and coastal populations within New England outside the Hunter were broadly in balance. Then came the sea-change phenomenon which led to rapid growth in the coastal populations.To a degree, this growth was unstable and has now slowed because jobs did not follow the growth, leading to increased poverty. .

In 2011, the North Coast population reached 597,770, up slightly to 600,071 in 2016. Stagnation in the inland population meant that from rough balance, the New England North West population fell to 31.49% of the coastal population in 2011, down to 30.96% in 2016. 

The area was affected by fragmentation too from outside forces. The growth of Brisbane and the Gold Coast conurbation helped drive growth in the Richmond and especially the Tweed Rive Valleys. By 2016, the Richmond-Tweed population had grown to 245,164 or 17.2% of the New England population, roughly equaling the inland New England population including the Upper Hunter. 

In the south, two drive variables came into play. Sydney's growth extended into the Lower Hunter While Newcastle suffered from losses associated with the industrial restructuring of the 1990s including the closure of the BHP as well as Sydney blindness, its closeness to Sydney, its life style opportunities and the rise of coal mining and tourism all contributed to growth in Lake Macquarie, Newcastle and the Llower Hunter. The growth was lower than Sydney's, but high enough to increase the Hunter and especially the Lower Hunter's share of the New England population. 

In 1911, the population of Newcastle and the main nearby towns including Maitland and Cessnock was 71,000 or 16.5%  of New England's population.   In 2016, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie on their own totaled 25.96% of the New England population. The Hunter Valley as a whole totaled 44.88% of the New England population. 

The second southern driver, one not recognised because of border myopia, was the rise of Canberra.

In 1961, the ACT's population was just 76,000, although it had begun to grow rapidly. The population of the ACT plus what is now called the Capital Region, those areas most within Canberra's economic sphere of influence, was less than the inland New England population. In 2016, the ACT's population reached 403,468 with a further 224,288 living the Capital Region for a total population of 627,756. 

The effects have been quite profound, for it has shifted the economic center of gravity south. Lacking any major centre of economic gravity, New England has fragmented, drawn in multiple directions north and south with very little present control over its future.